RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04942 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not allowed to attend a medical, dental, or taps out-processing briefing as required by air force guidance and regulations. She had her right ovary and fallopian tube removed due to a tumor and became a survivor of ovarian cancer at the age of fifteen. After being cancer free for seven years, she received a waiver to enter the Air Force. During her tenure in the Air Force, she endured three miscarriages. The last miscarriage required the removal of her left fallopian tube and now she can only have children through artificial insemination, which is very expensive. She discovered her now ex-spouse was unfaithful and fell into a severe depression. Subsequently, she was committed to a hospital for depression, anxiety and suicidal ideations because she felt betrayed and a like a failure. She was deployed to Curacao in January 2011 and was constantly sexually harassed by her supervisor. During one incident she verbally responded to a sexual harassing comment he made towards her and he became surprised and embarrassed. He responded by saying she was going to receive a letter of reprimand (LOR) for disrespect to a non-commissioned officer (NCO). After this incident she felt targeted and isolated because she received three write-ups for disrespect to a NCO. She did not know who she could trust or turn to for help. She received a reassignment after intervention from her mother. However, two weeks prior to her expiration of term of service (ETS) her mother contacted her chain-of-command to inquire as to why she was not being allowed to out-process. Her mother threatened to submit an inspector general (IG) and congressional complaint. In response, after her mother’s contact she received an apology and an offer of two $50.00 give cards to the Post Exchange. Her mother was very upset and stated the offer was blackmail. However, she begged her mother to let it go because she needed the assistance. Her experience during the last couple of years of enlistment was horrible. She was not mentored or protected by her superiors. She experienced poor leadership and supervision and most importantly she was sexually harassed regularly. She did not receive the proper guidance from her unit in regards to out-processing medically, Transition Assistance Program (TAP) briefings or otherwise. She was not allowed or paid terminal leave. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 24 March 2009. On 23 March 2013, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service,” with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “MBK” and Reentry Code of “3I” (Airman selected for reenlistment, by Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center (HQ AFPC) removed the airman’s name from the career job reservation (CJR) waiting list within 5 months of date of separation (DOS)). She was credited with four years of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offers compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future progression of disease or injury. The Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, indicates a service member shall be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating (hereafter called duties) to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. Although the previous Instruction may have since been set aside, the aforementioned policy statement is retained and includes two additional criteria for determining unfitness under a more recent publication, DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System, which indicates a service member may also be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that: (1) The Service member’s disability represents a decided medical risk to the health of the member or to the welfare or safety of other members; or (2) The Service member’s disability imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the Service member. In this respect, the evidentiary standard for determining unfitness because of disability, under the new DoDI 1332.18, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned must cite objective evidence in the record, as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture, to determine a Service member is unfit because of disability. Additionally, with the exception of presumption of fitness cases, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned will determine fitness or unfitness for military service on the basis of the preponderance of the objective evidence in the record. In the case under review, although the applicant may have been treated for a Depressive Disorder and/or an Anxiety-related state, experienced at least two traumatic exposures, and is likely destined for, or has already received, compensation for these and other service-incurred conditions by the Department of Veterans Affairs, no evidence is presented to indicate that any medical condition, either physical or mental, precluded the applicant from reasonably performing the duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating. This is in part borne out in the applicant’s performance reports. Specifically, there is no evidence that the applicant had a medical condition so severe [e.g., issuance of an “S-4T” profile] as to disqualify her from worldwide duty or which interfered with her duties to the extent or duration that warranted a Medical Hold and referral for MEB and PEB processing [as would be depicted on an AF Form 469, coded “37”]. While it may appear counterintuitive that a mental disorder would not have been determined unfitting, in the context of the rigors attendant with deployments, no objective evidence have been found that establishes or should have established, a cause and effect relationship between the termination of the applicant’s military service and a medical condition. On the other hand, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.), with a different purpose, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service-incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for separation. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service or at the time of separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service for one reason and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA one or more medical conditions that were service-connected, but not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from military service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may vary (improve or worsen, affecting future employability) over the lifetime of the veteran. The applicant has not met the burden of proof that warrants supplanting her separation with a medical discharge or retirement. Her other noted contentions are beyond the purview of the medical consultant and should be addressed through an investigative body. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 September 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was timely filed. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04942 in Executive Session on 15 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 August 2015. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 September 2015 1 2